New York Times Eliminating Public Editor Position
When The New York Times created the job of public editor, at the recommendation of a committee tasked with a journalism scandal at the newspaper, the newspaper’s executive editor Bill Keller described the position as a benefit to the newspaper and its credibility. It represents “a pair of professional eyes, familiar with us but independent of the day-to-day production of the paper, can make us more sensitive on matters of fairness and accuracy, and enhance our credibility,” he said.
Those eyes will soon be permanently shut. The newspaper today announced it is discontinuing the public editor position, even before the term of current editor Liz Spayd is set to end.
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. pointed to social media in justifying the move. While the position was once necessary, he insisted, “today, our followers on social media and our readers across the internet have come together to collectively serve as a modern watchdog, more vigilant and forceful than one person could ever be.” The explanation echoed that given several years ago by the Washington Post‘s Marty Baron. “There is ample criticism of our performance from outside sources, entirely independent of the newsroom, and we don’t pay their salaries,” he said.
But Public Editors (or ombudsmen, as they are often called) should not be confused with random critics on Twitter. Unlike most social media users, they’re able to lace up their shoes, walk down the hall, knock on a journalist’s door, and ask pointed questions about this decision or that coverage. As importantly, they can report back to readers about what they heard, and how they assess the response, on the pages of the same newspaper where the article in question appeared.
As Minnesota Public Radio’s Bob Collins wrote about Baron’s comments, “That’s nonsense. Newsrooms don’t really care about public criticism, which is often uninformed, but historically they have cared when someone with some journalism chops questions the decisions.”
Collins said the same about Sulzberger’s statement. “Readers simply do not carry the weight of a fellow journalist where criticism is concerned.”
Other journalists have likewise criticized the decision.
Eliminating the position of Public Editor does not seem like a great idea. Frankly, I'd love to see us add one. https://t.co/JhgxuzhS6y
— Steven Rich (@dataeditor) May 31, 2017
As a former ombudsman and newspaperman, I don't approve.
The New York Times is eliminating the public editor role https://t.co/89H4HMxaz4
— John Scalzi (@scalzi) May 31, 2017
3. The one thing an ombud or public editor can almost always do is hold feet to the fire, and get a real answer out of management.
— Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) May 31, 2017
The @nytimes reasons for getting rid of the public editor either mean they're lying or don't understand the Internet. Tough choice https://t.co/6HMK1OTKVN
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) May 31, 2017
More from SNAPSHOTS
Reuters Falsely Links Jerusalem Embassy, Two-State Solution
January 9, 2019
The Jerusalem office park which houses Guatemala's embassy Multiple recent Reuters articles incorrectly report that moving the Brazilian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a dramatic move away from the two-state solution. For instance, [...]
American Lutheran In Jerusalem Affirms that IDF Soldiers Are “Stormtroopers,” Backtracks
December 19, 2018
Rev. Carrie Ballenger Smith is a pastor at the Church of the Redeemer in Jerusalem. She ministers to the English-speaking congregation that meets at the Lutheran church, which is located in the Old City of [...]
The Washington Post Ignores Antisemitic Attack in Los Angeles
November 29, 2018
The Washington Post has warned about a “rising tide of antisemitism.” But as CAMERA has highlighted, The Post’s coverage of antisemitism has frequently been selective and is often politicized. More recently, the newspaper even ignored [...]
Think Tank: Iran Was Closer to Building a Bomb Than Previously Thought
November 23, 2018
A Nov. 20, 2018 report by a Washington D.C.-based think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) argues that Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program was “more advanced than Western intelligence agencies and the [...]
AFP Headline Casts Palestinian Assailant as Victim
November 21, 2018
Agence France Presse yesterday published a throwback headline, bringing us back to the period almost two years ago in which media outlets serially produced headlines which depicted Palestinian attackers as the victims. The wire agency's [...]
More Hypocrisy and Anti-Semitism From Linda Sarsour
November 19, 2018
In an earlier CAMERA exposé, we pointed out the self-serving allegiances and disgraceful hypocrisy of Linda Sarsour (of Women's March fame). We demonstrated how she poses as a universal activist who embraces all marginalized people [...]
Small Steps: Improved NY Times Language on Target of Hamas Rockets
November 15, 2018
Earlier this week, we pointed out how a New York Times article about fighting between Israel and Hamas neglected to inform readers that Palestinian rockets were fired indiscriminately toward civilians in Israeli towns and cities. [...]